Newsmaker: Muglia: Microsoft's future is in 64-bit

With the launch of Vista coming over the next few months, Microsoft has had little opportunity to talk about anything else. But the software giant is developing new products in a range of other areas, from Exchange 2007 to virtualization to managed services.

One man with a grasp of Microsoft's overall product direction is the vice president for servers and tools, Bob Muglia.

CNET News.com's sister site ZDNet UK grabbed some time with Muglia at November's TechEd IT Forum in Barcelona, Spain, to hear why Microsoft has begun announcing 64-bit only versions of its software and about its plans for managed services, virtualization and other matters.

Q: Microsoft has made some key announcements this year and hinted at future directions for 64-bit, including comments that some products in the future will be 64-bit only. Where do you see 64-bit heading in the next few years?
Muglia: About 18 months ago, we brought out a 64-bit version of Windows Server and we have been on a continuous progression to ensure that our applications first and foremost run properly on 64-bit. And there are a few places, especially where device drivers are involved, where there are still issues.

We've also been launching 64-bit applications. The first major application that we brought out that was 64-bit enabled was SQL Server 2005, and we are seeing pretty substantive adoption of the 64-bit version. That was basically because there was first and foremost no downside for a company to use it. It has the scalability, it is transparent. The only difference is that now you have many gigabytes of memory.

We will ship Longhorn in the second half of next year, and we will ship a 32-bit and a 64-bit version. That will be the last time we ship a 32-bit version.

When Exchange Server 2007 ships shortly, it will be the first major server application that Microsoft produces which is only 64-bit. That was a rather difficult decision for us to take, but we decided as a company that by offering 64-bit only, we could offer customers really substantive benefits in availability and performance.

The differences in the operational characteristics of Exchange 2007 versus previous versions are considerable, particularly in the amount of memory it can take advantage of--for example, in storage. With this sort of intensive disk-focused application you needed very substantial, SAN-based storage systems which could run very highly available Exchange implementations. Because of its 64-bit capabilities, its demands on storage are much less. The opportunity is there for people to have less cluster-focused disk applications. We are seeing that.

What we chose to do within Microsoft, for example, is move from a mailbox of 200 megabytes per user to a mailbox of 2 gigabytes. We are able to do that at the same cost per user.

Looking into the future, we will ship Longhorn (the next version of Windows Server) in the second half of next year, and we will ship a 32-bit and a 64-bit version. That will be the last time we ship a 32-bit version. From that point, the next release, which will be roughly two years later, that product will only be available as 64-bit.

Where are you going with Microsoft Managed Services?
Muglia: In time, some of our customers will want to acquire IT as a service. It is different from a consulting service, and I need to distinguish between delivering software as a service versus a standard consulting service--a customized service.

We think this trend is going to happen in a major way. It has been discussed quite a lot since 2000. At the time, it was not successful because the infrastructure wasn't ready, and clearly, the software wasn't ready. It is clear that this will happen, and we need to ensure that our software is used in that process.

We have done this ourselves and taken on a couple of customers, and we have learned some of the shortcomings of our software. Some of the things we have learned include that our software needs to work transparently across the internet to make it work. Some things work very well already, like Outlook 2003 versus Exchange.

 

Correction: This Q&A with Microsoft's Bob Muglia cited an incorrect figure for the size of mailboxes that Microsoft is now working with. The correct figure is 2 gigabytes per user.

More Newsmakers

[Macsaresafer]

Way to go, Captain Obvious.

Everybody knows that the future is 64-bit, no matter what OS you <br />use. The real question is, why is it that Microsoft can't manage to <br />run 32-bit and 64-bit applications and drivers side by side? Apple's <br />doing it with OS X Leopard, what's wrong with Microsoft and <br />Windows?

[jabbotts]

It may be for the best

64bit may force Microsoft to finally scrap the msDos, Win95, Win98, WinNT code that's hidden away behind whatever usual latest facelift they're hocking. It's nice to have backward bug compatibility and all but really.<br /><br />The thing that caught me about the article was the bit about more MS product being released as 64bit only. Translation:<br /><br />"We're really happy that you've baught the latest system from our hardware partners at every new version of Bloatdows and it's realy great that your pushing dual core so you can get the same performance that any other OS would show on a single core pentium but we're going to need you to go ahead and drop five bills on new multi core 64bit hardware if you haven't already."<br /><br />"We're really happy that your running our Exchange server product (of course with our client application because you have too) but we're going to need you to upgrade that now because it won't interact with the new client software you'll soon be forced to buy. Unfortunately we only have a 64bit version Mr. CIO. Yes, it's unfortunate but you know, controlled innovation and all. You'll need to scrap that 32bit server farm and blow your budget on 64bit hardware now."<br /><br />And the MS upgrade treadmill begins to push customers through another step.<br /><br />Yeah, eventually we'll all have 32 core 128 bit hardware but that should be at the customers rate of hardware evolution not imposed by the product developer.<br /><br />Enough of my rant. It would be a benifit to the tech industry as a whole if 64bit only applications means that winXP (Vista or whatever is standard by then) finally stops supporting msDos, msDos95 and msDos98 bugs at least.

[Tech38]

Planned Obsolescense

Its obvious by this plan to not ship a 32-bit version that they are trying to force an upgrade of all server-side application software.<br /><br />They are doing exactly the same thing with Vista by removing WinHlp32. It is the cheesiest attempt that Microsoft has ever made to undermine both developers and end users, and undoubtedly it will blow up in their face.<br /><br />GM, Ford, and Chrysler found out the hard way that you can't force product upgrades down people's throats, and now the mighty Microsoft has resorted to techniques employed by the dinosaurs of the industrial revolution.<br /><br />Its sad and funny at the same time.

[rapier1]

What?

Apple seems to have been able to force people to upgrade all of <br />their application software at least twice in the past 5 or so years. <br />First with the move to OS X and then the move to Intel.

[Llib Setag]

oooooooo...64 bits

Wow! Now THAT'S innovation from Jurassic Park (Redmond One)...<br /><br />Universe to Microsoft...<br />Clue, get one.

[Llib Setag]

oooooooo...64 bits

Wow! Now THAT'S innovation from Jurassic Park (Redmond One)...<br /><br />Universe to Microsoft...<br />Clue, get one.

[Thomas, David]

No, its in 16-bit (OMG)

... well, thanks for the news.

[mds32767]

200 gigabyte mailbox per user?

"What we chose to do within Microsoft, for example, is move from a mailbox of 200 megabytes per user to a mailbox of 200 gigabytes. We are able to do that at the same cost per user."<br /><br />Must be from 200 megs to 2 gigabytes per user and not 200 gigabytes...slight difference. The email economics of total storage capactiy required for IOPs demand in most cases allows larger mailbox sizes without a substantial increase in disk transfers but I have serious doubts that a 100000% increase in mailbox storage capacity is not associated with a certain cost.

[mds32767]

200 gigabyte mailbox per user?

"What we chose to do within Microsoft, for example, is move from a mailbox of 200 megabytes per user to a mailbox of 200 gigabytes. We are able to do that at the same cost per user."<br /><br />Must be from 200 megs to 2 gigabytes per user and not 200 gigabytes...slight difference. The email economics of total storage capacity required for IOPs demand in most cases allows larger mailbox sizes without a substantial increase in disk transfers but I have serious doubts that a 100000% increase in max allowed mailbox size is not associated with a certain cost.

[Jon Skillings]

Story corrected

You're right - the increase is just to 2 gigabytes. The text of the Q&#38;A has been fixed.

[jmaster03]

Mmmmmmm